Fate of Canada in case of Central Powers US?

[Blue cat]

I can. I mean weren't the British willing to leave Australia defenseless if push were came to shove and the UK had to choose between itself and Australia.

Except in this time line by fighting the Americans in North America the UK is contributing to the defence of the UK by fighting the Americans in North America vs fighting them later closer to or in the UK.

Edit to add: fighting the Americans in North America does not necessarily equal defending Canada. Although at first glance fighting defensively in Canada does seem like a good way to inflict casulities on the Americans.

 

[thekingsguard]

Its adorable that the board's Canadians think the British would sacrifice anything to defend Canada, as opposed to willingly sacrificing all the Canadian soil they needed to keep American GIs away from Britian.

Ask the ANZACs at Gallipolli how much London cared for them as more than pawns and warm bodies to be tossed at the enemy.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

The question is, what territories would be the priority of the United States for annexation?

1) Nova Scotia. The British will likely use Halifax as a base for raiding the United States East Coast. The US is going to keep Nova Scotia.
2) British Columbia and the Yukon.
3) Nibbled off areas around the lakes. The Niagara Peninsula, Essex County (Ontario), Navy Island, Walpole Island, Stag Island, Pelee Island, Manitoulin Island, Thunder Bay, St Joseph Island, etc. The US owns the lake now laddies and don't you forget it.
4) St Lawrence River Islands. Wolfe Island, Howe island, the Thousand Islands, Hill Island, Grenadier Island, Cornwall Island, etc. The US owns the St Lawrence, deal with it.

Canada will furthermore remain independent as a Republic. All official in Canada are legally required to be bilingual in French and English, thus resulting in Francophones (who don't like the British too much) having a disproportionate amount of power in the government and civil service.

 

[Ratmancampidori]

Its adorable that the board's Canadians think the British would sacrifice anything to defend Canada, as opposed to willingly sacrificing all the Canadian soil they needed to keep American GIs away from Britian.

Ask the ANZACs at Gallipolli how much London cared for them as more than pawns and warm bodies to be tossed at the enemy.

No.

The point of propping up Canada and the Caribbean is simple, both these areas are invaluble and loosing them would be a massive blow to the British Empire.

As for Gallipoli, look what the British were doing to there own troops at the battle of the Somme. It didn’t matter where in the British Empire they were born, canon fodder was cannon fodder.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

The question is, what territories would be the priority of the United States for annexation?

1) Nova Scotia. The British will likely use Halifax as a base for raiding the United States East Coast. The US is going to keep Nova Scotia.
2) British Columbia and the Yukon.
3) Nibbled off areas around the lakes. The Niagara Peninsula, Essex County (Ontario), Navy Island, Walpole Island, Stag Island, Pelee Island, Manitoulin Island, Thunder Bay, St Joseph Island, etc. The US owns the lake now laddies and don't you forget it.
4) St Lawrence River Islands. Wolfe Island, Howe island, the Thousand Islands, Hill Island, Grenadier Island, Cornwall Island, etc. The US owns the St Lawrence, deal with it.

Canada will furthermore remain independent as a Republic. All official in Canada are legally required to be bilingual in French and English, thus resulting in Francophones (who don't like the British too much) having a disproportionate amount of power in the government and civil service.

^^^That.

 

[ChadMachine999]

The US would overwhelm and annex Canada in a year. During this time America had more industry than all of Britain, and defiantly had more Industry than Canada. This alternate “Germanized” America would be very interesting. It would for sure be a lot more militaristic, one thing that TTL, maybe even one having mandatory conscription during peacetime for all male youths. America English would probably have a lot of German loan words. I defiantly think the US would annex all of Canada, because simply put, who would be their to stop them. They just defeated the British. The Germans would be to busy with Eastern Europe to care. Canadians wouldn’t like it, but during the era of “might makes right” a revanchist and militarist American wouldn’t care, they would have no problems shooting those who resisted.

Nations not habit bring grudge decades after lost war. Check now OTL France and Germany in 21st century. Are they bitter enemies? No. they are almost best buddies. Even alliance between UK and France wasn't any problem despite that they have always been in war against each others. I don't believe that USA would bring grudge over small state five decades, at least not so hard that it would go war against other great power.

After France lost Alsace-Lorraine their entire foreign policy for fifty years revolved around reclaiming it.

 

[Blue cat]

The US would overwhelm and annex Canada in a year. During this time America had more industry than all of Britain, and defiantly had more Industry than Canada. This alternate “Germanized” America would be very interesting. It would for sure be a lot more militaristic, one thing that TTL, maybe even one having mandatory conscription during peacetime for all male youths. America English would probably have a lot of German loan words. I defiantly think the US would annex all of Canada, because simply put, who would be their to stop them. They just defeated the British. The Germans would be to busy with Eastern Europe to care. Canadians wouldn’t like it, but during the era of “might makes right” a revanchist and militarist American wouldn’t care, they would have no problems shooting those who resisted.

After France lost Alsace-Lorraine their entire foreign policy for fifty years revolved around reclaiming it.

Sure, so if one continues with the Alsace-Lorraine analogy then perhaps the Americans would settle for righting what ever wrongs they perceived were imposed on them in the 1860`s, and perhaps demand a bit of extra territory as compensation and assuming the UK agreed to a cease hostilities at that point the US might declare victory and call it a day. (If the UK believes they can trust the US they would probably try and work out a diplomatic arrangement along these lines long before an actual shooting war broke out.) I expect the UK would be far less attached to the relevant portions of Canada than the Germans were to Alsace-Lorraine so making a deal should be much easier for both sides.

If the UK and the Canadians inflict Verdun or Somme scale casualties on the Americans I have my doubts that the US is really going to want to continue the war if the UK makes a reasonable offer to the US. Conversely if the UK perceived that the US was a full partner with the central powers and was hoping to actually conquer the UK or perhaps join the Germans in imposing unbearable terms on the UK, then I expect the UK would double down on the conflict in North America and try and tie down as many Americans as they could as far away from the UK as possible. Keeping the remaining Canadian population enthused and engaged in the war against the US would likely be a key British war aim. In the end stages I can envision the UK deciding to fight for locations such as Churchill Manitoba, just to make the US go thru the hassle of moving forces to those locations and clearing the Canadian and UK defenders out of their trenches.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

While I find the premise...questionable in a scenario where the US somehow manages to keep it joining the Central Powers secret, then once Canada begins mobilizing and the US attacks (though let's be clear, you can't hide that) Canada falls early 1915. Even in a prepared UK scenario the latest Canada could hold would be spring 1916, but that's iffy in itself.

It's far more likely Britain isn't apart of the general alliance system since its risky for it to be involved in only Europe while the US is a threat in the Atlantic and the Pacific.

 

[ChadMachine999]

Sure, so if one continues with the Alsace-Lorraine analogy then perhaps the Americans would settle for righting what ever wrongs they perceived were imposed on them in the 1860`s, and perhaps demand a bit of extra territory as compensation and assuming the UK agreed to a cease hostilities at that point the US might declare victory and call it a day. (If the UK believes they can trust the US they would probably try and work out a diplomatic arrangement along these lines long before an actual shooting war broke out.) I expect the UK would be far less attached to the relevant portions of Canada than the Germans were to Alsace-Lorraine so making a deal should be much easier for both sides.

If the UK and the Canadians inflict Verdun or Somme scale casualties on the Americans I have my doubts that the US is really going to want to continue the war if the UK makes a reasonable offer to the US. Conversely if the UK perceived that the US was a full partner with the central powers and was hoping to actually conquer the UK or perhaps join the Germans in imposing unbearable terms on the UK, then I expect the UK would double down on the conflict in North America and try and tie down as many Americans as they could as far away from the UK as possible. Keeping the remaining Canadian population enthused and engaged in the war against the US would likely be a key British war aim. In the end stages I can envision the UK deciding to fight for locations such as Churchill Manitoba, just to make the US go thru the hassle of moving forces to those locations and clearing the Canadian and UK defenders out of their trenches.

In the early nineteenth century their was a common viewpoint that Canadians were Americans who were being oppressed by the British. Perhapses this idea is revived. Also OP said that Britan took US territory during the Civil War. This would A) Anger Abolitionist in Canada and B) Make the US feel like Britain was trying to hold back the US in an archaic situation. Also why wouldn’t the US take all of Canada. Canada minus Quebec is culturally very similar to America so their would be a nationalist case for doing so. Also the US is going to war with Britain and will have to occupy all of Canada regardless, so why wouldn’t they just annex all of it, when they pay the same price for doing it as they do for not doing it. Also I doubt the UK could inflict Verdun style casualties on America considering the population difference between the two, as well as America is pretty much focused on the North American theater, while Britain has most of their army on the Western Front. Also keep in mind that this scenario occurs under a POD that creates an America that is much more militaristic and nationalist than OTL America. America would unlikely get Verdun style casualties from this front, and if they did, it would just harden their resolve to “liberate their ethnic brothers from the yoke of British Imperialism.”

 

[Blue cat]

. Also the US is going to war with Britain and will have to occupy all of Canada regardless, so why wouldn’t they just annex all of it, when they pay the same price for doing it as they do for not doing it.”

Depending on the US war aims they may well be able to achieve them without having occupy all of Canada and subsequently annexing it. But sure if the US wants to mount overland (or perhaps over ice) expeditions to capture locations such as Churchill Manitoba I am sure the UK and possibly any surviving Canadians who are not in US captivity will be happy to play along. If the main US war aim was to actually occupy and annex all of Canada I suspect the UK might be quietly relieved if this happened in the context of a world war with the other central powers.

 

[Alternator]

Sure, so if one continues with the Alsace-Lorraine analogy then perhaps the Americans would settle for righting what ever wrongs they perceived were imposed on them in the 1860`s, and perhaps demand a bit of extra territory as compensation and assuming the UK agreed to a cease hostilities at that point the US might declare victory and call it a day. (If the UK believes they can trust the US they would probably try and work out a diplomatic arrangement along these lines long before an actual shooting war broke out.) I expect the UK would be far less attached to the relevant portions of Canada than the Germans were to Alsace-Lorraine so making a deal should be much easier for both sides.

If the UK and the Canadians inflict Verdun or Somme scale casualties on the Americans I have my doubts that the US is really going to want to continue the war if the UK makes a reasonable offer to the US. Conversely if the UK perceived that the US was a full partner with the central powers and was hoping to actually conquer the UK or perhaps join the Germans in imposing unbearable terms on the UK, then I expect the UK would double down on the conflict in North America and try and tie down as many Americans as they could as far away from the UK as possible. Keeping the remaining Canadian population enthused and engaged in the war against the US would likely be a key British war aim. In the end stages I can envision the UK deciding to fight for locations such as Churchill Manitoba, just to make the US go thru the hassle of moving forces to those locations and clearing the Canadian and UK defenders out of their trenches.

You're overlooking something very basic: yes, there's tons of Canadian wilderness to retreat into...but there's no industry there, and if cut off from the western prairies, there's also insufficient food, so everything needs to be imported. Russia can trade space because their heartland isn't on the immediate front lines, but if the Canadians lose fifty miles inland from the Saint Lawrence, then the war's over - the Canadian heartland has fallen.

It doesn't matter how much the British want to fight for ever mile of ground if they can't provide supplies for the army; at best, they can garrison the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador, and eastern Quebec - in other words, the regions directly bordering the Atlantic Ocean - so heavily that everything bogs down into trench warfare. The problem for the Canadians is that most of their population is now under United States occupation, and for Britain, it's that the frontlines in rump Canada do not nearly require the full might of the US Army.

Eventually the United States is going to out-build the Royal Navy, and at that point the Caribbean islands start to fall - assuming the European alliances shifted enough that Germany and Austria-Hungary don't roll right over France and Russia before that point. It's also entirely possible that both are preempted by starvation: Britain no longer has access to Canadian or American foodstuffs nor the American merchant marine, and the Germans can more freely unleash the u-boats since there's no big, powerful neutral to offend.

As to what the United States is likely to actually want: the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario is the most desirable prize, though also sufficiently populated that the Americans cannot easily flood it with settlers; I'd guess they would settle for the Niagra Peninsula to remove Buffalo from the frontlines. Absorbing Essex County would likewise provide security for Detroit, and claiming at least coastal British Columbia has the obvious advantage of denying Canada direct access to the Pacific. The Maritimes are exceptionally valuable, so much so that I'd anticipate the British would try and hold them even after abandoning the rest of Canada; there's a fair chance they'll hold on longer than Britain stays in the war, but if occupied they aren't going to be returned.

 

[Blue cat]

as well as America is pretty much focused on the North American theater, while Britain has most of their army on the Western Front. ”

If that were to happen in the context of a general war with the central powers I expect the UK would be quite pleased. I am much less optimistic about the UK being able to deploy large numbers of forces on the Western Front if the United States is an active member of the central powers. If some how the US could be kept busy in Canada while the UK can provide significant assistance to the French in their fight against the Germans I suspect the Germans will be less than happy with their US Allies.

If some how the UK concluded that all the US wanted out of their involvement in the war was Canada they might just leave the Canadians to more or less fight the US on their own (although I suspect for Political reasons the UK would need to send at least some help to Canada.) In reality though I suspect the UK would expect the US to rapidly shift forces to Europe once Canada was defeated, hence my belief that the UK would invest significant resources in keeping the US forces in and around Canada engaged.

 

[Teiresias]

Mexico would love to do something about it, even today.

While Mexico might not have been happy about losing California and Texas, they didn't declare undying vengeance on the US, either. Nations don't work that way. Even France, while it wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, had other things to worry about. Considering that the amount of territory the US loses to Britain in this scenario is fairly small, especially compared to the Confederacy, I don't think the US would worry about it too much unless it has other reasons to oppose Britain. After all, does anyone think that if the US did take Canada, that Britain would spend the next century trying to get it back.

 

[sloreck]

The USA is 15x the population of Canada, many times the industry, and settled Canada is very shallow. Let's say the RN is equal to Germany plus the USA - the problem is the RN has a lot of Empire where trade needs to be protected. Sure the UK has bases in the Caribbean but almost no logistics. The initial task of the USN is to protect the US coasts, and prevent the UK from shipping troops/supplies to Canada. while US heavy forces are doing that commerce raiders are making life unpleasant for the RN. The RN still has to keep a large home fleet to guard against the HSF, and the MN and RN are busy in the Med because of the A-H naval forces and a lesser extent the Ottomans. IMHO whatever forces are in Canada on the day the war starts, Canadian or UK, are not going to get substantial reinforcements of men or materiel from outside Canada - some but not lots.

If this war happens the USA is not going to want a UK affiliated Canadian entity of any size sitting on the northern border, and certainly no RN bases on either coast. If offered an independent Quebec will the Francophones want to engage in partisan warfare against the USA? Canadians who absolutely can't abide being absorbed by the USA can leave for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc... There may be some violent die hards, but they won't last.

 

[Blue cat]

It doesn't matter how much the British want to fight for ever mile of ground if they can't provide supplies for the army; at best, they can garrison the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador, and eastern Quebec - in other words, the regions directly bordering the Atlantic Ocean - so heavily that everything bogs down into trench warfare. The problem for the Canadians is that most of their population is now under United States occupation, and for Britain, it's that the frontlines in rump Canada do not nearly require the full might of the US Army.

Eventually the United States is going to out-build the Royal Navy, and at that point the Caribbean islands start to fall - assuming the European alliances shifted enough that Germany and Austria-Hungary don't roll right over France and Russia before that point. It's also entirely possible that both are preempted by starvation: Britain no longer has access to Canadian or American foodstuffs nor the American merchant marine, and the Germans can more freely unleash the u-boats since there's no big, powerful neutral to offend.

As to what the United States is likely to actually want: the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario is the most desirable prize, though also sufficiently populated that the Americans cannot easily flood it with settlers; I'd guess they would settle for the Niagra Peninsula to remove Buffalo from the frontlines. Absorbing Essex County would likewise provide security for Detroit, and claiming at least coastal British Columbia has the obvious advantage of denying Canada direct access to the Pacific. The Maritimes are exceptionally valuable, so much so that I'd anticipate the British would try and hold them even after abandoning the rest of Canada; there's a fair chance they'll hold on longer than Britain stays in the war, but if occupied they aren't going to be returned.

Re supplies.. I am thinking that the Canadians and UK will have had decades to think thru how this conflict might play out and it seems reasonable to me that considerable quantities of food, coal, other fuels, fodder for animals, medical supplies etc could be stock piled in likely areas where their armies may need to make a final stand. I suspect munitions will need to be shipped in. Ideally from the UK perspective as few civilians as possible would be behind their lines at this stage.

I am also envisioning that towards the end of the campaign if their main positions are in danger of falling the UK might land forces by sea in places such as Churchill Manitoba (along with a reasonable quantity of supplies) and basically uses them as bait to force the US to invest resources into either reaching these locations over land or entice the USN into trying to reach them by sea where the RN can attack them along the way. Even if the fortunes of the RN are starting to fall by this point, mines, submarines, light forces and probably general navigational hazards will present issues for the US. I suspect the US would also have to invest significant resources into preventing the RN from occasionally re supplying these forces by sea and that diversion of US naval forces will also help the UK.

I agree the UK will make a huge effort to hold the maritimes region (and probably Vancouver island if the Japanese can help.)

I do not necessarily disagree with you about the broader strategic issues for the UK, but I expect the UK would want to keep the war going in and around North America as long as they could as they could.

I also would not discount the UK trying to seize US territory (perhaps in areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, or maybe the pacific coast if the Japanese can help) to force the US to devote more forces to ejecting the invaders. As I mentioned before I also suspect the US holdings in the Pacific will be rather different in this time line which may help the UK and Japan.

I would have to think thru the likely frontages vis a vis the likely size of the US and UK forces but I would expect the UK to have an advantage if they are fighting defensively over ground that they have spent decades planning to defend. At the end of the day if the UK can tie down significantly more US forces than the UK needs to station in Canada then I expect the UK will believe their efforts are worth while. If the US is determined to eject the UK from ALL of Canada by force then I believe this is probably a good outcome for the UK as it will tie down more US forces. If the US is smarter they will simply try to isolate and contain the residual forces in Canada once they have obtained a reasonable set of war aims.

 

[Quintuplicate]

I've written a bill dealing with Canada after the US occupied it as part of a WWI TL where the US took the side of the Central Powers. Basically:
- Every province would have a convention to choose whether it wanted to be a territory, province or state, except Prince Edward Island, which would be merged into New Brunswick.
- Every province who chose to stay one would elect a general convention to draft a constitution for a new Canadian confederation. This confederation would be a republic.
- The convention of every province who chose to become a territory would then choose whether it would become one of Canada or the US.
- The convention of every province who chose to stay one would choose whether to ratify the constitution of the Canadian confederation; if less than half of the provinces voted no, these provinces would vote between state and territory; if more than half of the provinces voted no, a second constitutional convention would be summoned to create yet another constitution. If that constitution also failed, the provinces would vote between state and territory.
- Every province must be a republic.
- The Canadian Confederation must concede the US has a right to intervene there to protect life and property or its own interests, to establish bases there, etc. like Panama or Cuba.
There's more but I'm not finished yet.

 

[Saint_007]

Its adorable that the board's Canadians think the British would sacrifice anything to defend Canada, as opposed to willingly sacrificing all the Canadian soil they needed to keep American GIs away from Britian.

Ask the ANZACs at Gallipolli how much London cared for them as more than pawns and warm bodies to be tossed at the enemy.

Ironically, the ANZACs, while they took horrendous losses, were far from the main participants. The vast majority were "British Empire": British, Irish, Newfoundlanders, and Indians.

And as much as Britain will have to sacrifice a horribly vulnerable Canada to a belligerent USA, it will still face the fallout politically of losing vast resources and a good source of soldiers, and loyal followers of the empire.

 

[RodentRevolution]

While I find the premise...questionable in a scenario where the US somehow manages to keep it joining the Central Powers secret, then once Canada begins mobilizing and the US attacks (though let's be clear, you can't hide that) Canada falls early 1915. Even in a prepared UK scenario the latest Canada could hold would be spring 1916, but that's iffy in itself.

It's far more likely Britain isn't apart of the general alliance system since its risky for it to be involved in only Europe while the US is a threat in the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Alternately in 1908 the British introduce conscription, in ITTL 1914 a million British troops, overwhelmingly reservists, do a lot of dying at Mons but help in the great allied counter-encirclement of the German spearheads. Soon after the Germans sue for peace. America continues its special lonesome war for a bit longer but as result Canada in fact ends up marginally bigger than OTL.

 

[ReconGuy02]

Alternately in 1908 the British introduce conscription, in ITTL 1914 a million British troops, overwhelmingly reservists, do a lot of dying at Mons but help in the great allied counter-encirclement of the German spearheads. Soon after the Germans sue for peace. America continues its special lonesome war for a bit longer but as result Canada in fact ends up marginally bigger than OTL.

That's ASB

 

[RodentRevolution]

That's ASB

Funny but there was a debate about introducing conscription which it had it gone the other way would likely have gone into effect in 1908. Here circumstances for the British are more threatening and thus the chances of adopting such a measure increase. If the British have more manpower in the 1914 campaign then indeed something like the very encirclement of their foremost armies the Germans feared OTL becomes a possibility. Without Germany in the war then matter are problematic for the US.

Yet while I am using one possible range of outcomes from a simple change resulting in your stipulations your stipulations that require no changes to the timeline despite a US that has experienced a far more brutal Civil War and then adopted a strongly anti-British line is fine?

Alien Space Bat intervention requires circumstances that are not available OTL in any way shape or form.

You may not like butterflies but once you introduce one change then even with a major extinction of the wee beasties it only takes just one.

A better answer would be to look at other ways an event such as the British introducing conscription might pan out as there are of course other interpretations.